Channabasappa Since Dead By His Legal Representatives vs Yallapa Irappa Kumbar (Since Deceased) By His Legal Representatives & Ors

Leave granted.

The judgment dated 16.2.2017 passed by the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench in R.S.A. No.958 of 2005 is called in question in this appeal.

The respondents herein filed a suit for declaration and possession in respect of the two sites CTS No.2947 and 2950 situated in Rabakavi Town. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant (appellant) is an encroacher. However, according to the defendant, he has purchased the property in question by virtue of the registered Sale Deed dated 17.10.1979. The Trial Court, on evaluating the material on record, dismissed the suit. The judgment of the Trial Court wa confirmed by the First Appellate Court. The unsuccessful plaintiff approached the High Court, which has allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of both the courts below and held that the plaintiffs are the owners and that they are entitled to possession of the property.

Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and having gone through the material on record, we are of the opinion that the High Court has fallen in error in fully relying upon the revenue records to conclude that the respondents/plaintiffs are the owners of the properties. The plaintiffs heavily relied upon the two documents, i.e., Exhibit P.12 and P.13, the so called 'sanad' issued by the CTS authorities. The High Court, however, has practically ignored the registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner herein.

Be that as it may, we are not concerned about the title of the defendant/appellant, we are only concerned with the plaintiffs' prayer i.e., declaration and possession of the property. Unless the plaintiffs prove their title, they cannot get possession of the properties. The plaintiffs mainly rely upon the revenue records, more particularly, on Exhibits P.12 and P.13 which are stated to be Sanad issued by the CTS Authorities. It is by now well settled that the revenue authorities cannot declare the ownership of the properties more so the ancestral properties. It is the duty of the civil court to decide the ownership of a property, in case of a dispute relating to the same. As can be seen from the records, the plaintiffs have not produced any title deed or previous relevant records to show that the properties are ancestral properties of the plaintiffs. They merely relied upon Exhibits P.12 and P.13 which are disputed documents and are stated to have been prepared in collusion with the survey officers. On facts, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have held that those records are as a result of collusion, as mentioned supra. The subsequent revenue records will not help the plaintiffs inasmuch as they are all based on Exhibits P.12 and P.13.

In our considered opinion, the Trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court were justified in dismissing the suit inasmuch as the plaintiffs have not proved their title in accordance with law. As mentioned supra, the High Court was not justified in solely relying upon the revenue records to come to the conclusion that the respondents/plaintiffs were the owners of the properties. We are at a loss to understand as to why the plaintiffs did not produce any valid records including revenue records prior to Exhibits P.12 and P.13. If the properties were really their ancestral properties, the plaintiffs would have definitely produced the revenue records of the years prior to Exhibits P.12 and P.13. But they have placed reliance on Exhibits P.12 and P.13 which have come into existence in the year 1977. Even in the plaint, the plaintiffs have failed to plead that the properties are their ancestral properties and that they had valid proof in that regard.

Be that as it may, in the absence of any reliable material in favour of the plaintiffs, the High Court is not justified in decreeing the suit. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment passed by the High Court is set aside and that of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court stand restored.

There shall be no order as to costs.